Page 37 of 70 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 555 of 1036

Thread: Road toll - Police stupid obsession blaming speed

  1. #541
    Join Date
    1st September 2007 - 21:01
    Bike
    1993 Yamaha FJ 1200
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    14,126
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by cassina View Post
    You and a few others just attack my ideas because you are jelous you cant think up anything better yourself. Maybe you would have some credibility if as well as attacking my idea you responded with an idea of your own. Or are you just fearfull your idea would be attacked by others as well?
    We attack your ideas because we think you're a fuckwit.
    When life throws you a curve ... Lean into it ...

  2. #542
    Join Date
    1st September 2007 - 21:01
    Bike
    1993 Yamaha FJ 1200
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    14,126
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by cassina View Post
    Some on here will embrace what he wants to do as they have a belief that going to a riding school will make them a better rider. My solution to the problem is to whack all those with an "at fault" history higher ACC premiums.
    The cash cow that are speed cameras ... proves fines alone do not change peoples attitude to speed. Regardless of their financial or ethnic standing ...


    If ALL traffic fines owed to NZ Courts were paid ... the Government could afford to relax the motorcycle levies ... (almost)

    And ... ACC do not have premiums ... you cannot buy ACC "Cover". For any individual persons ACC vehicle levy to be either increased or reduced ... cannot be done under the current vehicle registration legislation. The levy is attached in the vehicles licensing system ... not to any particular named person.
    When life throws you a curve ... Lean into it ...

  3. #543
    Join Date
    1st September 2007 - 21:01
    Bike
    1993 Yamaha FJ 1200
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    14,126
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by cassina View Post
    I agree with you the premium on motorbikes is fault based but is the fault being applied to the mode of transport and not drivers/riders fair though?
    It is not a premium ... it is a levy ...

    It is NOT FAULT based ... it is RISK based ...

    Motorcyclists are seen (By ACC) as being more at RISK ... not more at FAULT. More CAR drivers are at fault in accidents than motorcyclists ... but they pay lower levy's ... explain why that is .. ???
    When life throws you a curve ... Lean into it ...

  4. #544
    Join Date
    24th April 2011 - 08:47
    Bike
    06 Honda 919-79 T140E Triumph 96 Guzzi
    Location
    Southland
    Posts
    484
    Quote Originally Posted by FJRider View Post
    It is not a premium ... it is a levy ...

    It is NOT FAULT based ... it is RISK based ...

    Motorcyclists are seen (By ACC) as being more at RISK ... not more at FAULT. More CAR drivers are at fault in accidents than motorcyclists ... but they pay lower levy's ... explain why that is .. ???
    As a twattling ultracrepidarian I don't think it can.
    "If you ever need anything please don’t hesitate to ask someone else first.”

    Anyhoo don't forget to add to calendar 19th May, 27th July, and 31 August.
    World whisky day, International whisky day, and Scotch whisky day.

  5. #545
    Join Date
    6th May 2012 - 10:41
    Bike
    invisibike
    Location
    pulling a sick mono
    Posts
    6,057
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by cassina View Post
    You and a few others just attack my ideas because you are jelous you cant think up anything better yourself. Maybe you would have some credibility if as well as attacking my idea you responded with an idea of your own. Or are you just fearfull your idea would be attacked by others as well?
    you're a fuckwit

  6. #546
    Join Date
    6th May 2012 - 10:41
    Bike
    invisibike
    Location
    pulling a sick mono
    Posts
    6,057
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by FJRider View Post
    We attack your ideas because we think you're a fuckwit.
    i don't even attack it's ideas. just it. there's no point, because it only has 3 ideas.

    it's a fuckwit and well beyond any kind of reasoned discussion. i could rebutt it on a point by point basis, but then it would just repeat what it's already said a thousand times (even if what it says has been debunked previously) and i'm just not that much of a masochist.

  7. #547
    Join Date
    1st September 2007 - 21:01
    Bike
    1993 Yamaha FJ 1200
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    14,126
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by cassina View Post
    You are being semantical as to whether its called a premium or a levy the cost remains the same but if you feel by calling it a levy makes you feel better all the best.
    By definition ... you're a ...

    Fuckwit ... :a stupid or contemptible person (often used as a general term of abuse). (look it up if you don't believe me ...

    An insurance premium is the amount of money that an individual or business must pay for an insurance policy. The insurance premium is considered income by the insurance company once it is earned, and also represents a liability in that the insurer must provide coverage for claims being made against the policy.




    Levy: impose (a tax, fee, or fine).
    "a tax of two per cent was levied on all cargoes"
    synonyms: impose, charge, exact, demand, raise, collect, gather;


    noun

    an act of levying a tax, fee, or fine.
    "police forces receive 49 per cent of their funding via a levy on the rates"
    synonyms: tax, tariff, toll, excise, duty, fee, imposition, impost, exaction, assessment, tithe, payment; More
    When life throws you a curve ... Lean into it ...

  8. #548
    Join Date
    1st September 2007 - 21:01
    Bike
    1993 Yamaha FJ 1200
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    14,126
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by cassina View Post
    I still think you are a semantical fuckwit,
    Semantical is not an English word. Semantic is. Buy a dictionary. Is English your 2nd (or 3rd) language .. ???

    There are more on here that think you are a fuckwit than I. So we must be correct.
    When life throws you a curve ... Lean into it ...

  9. #549
    Join Date
    4th December 2009 - 19:45
    Bike
    I Ride No More
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    278

    WHy Not ACC Levies ?

    Quote Originally Posted by cassina View Post
    Some on here will embrace what he wants to do as they have a belief that going to a riding school will make them a better rider. My solution to the problem is to whack all those with an "at fault" history higher ACC premiums.
    You've been pushing this "increased ACC levy" policy for quite some time,
    and you've had plenty of time to develop your thinking. But I 'm still none
    the wiser what you're trying to achieve:

    - To further penalise a rider (or driver) due to their being responsible for more
    than one "at fault" accident,
    or
    - To increase the provision within the ACC funds for personal injury treatment
    and rehabilitation ?

    Which is it ?


    In order for your policy to get some traction, it's important for you to lay out a
    few planks of your policy ahead of time, so the audience can better understand
    your thinking.

    So here's a few simple questions (which should be quite easy for you to answer):


    A. Road User Types Causing Accidents / Being Affected by an Increased ACC Levy

    1. Does your policy apply to motorcyclists only ? If so, why ?

    2. To other motorists as well (e.g. car drivers, truck drivers) ?

    3. What about periodic road users (e.g. farmers on quad bikes using the road to
    shift stock between paddocks ) ?

    4. What about non-motorised road users (e.g. bicyclists ) ?

    5. Any other specific inclusions or exclusions ?


    B. Equity of Levying Proposed Charges

    1. Is being charged a fine for a specific driving offence - and then also being
    penalised further via an increased ACC levy amount - not inequitable ?

    Is the offender not being punished twice ?

    2. Would it be a "one-off" charge, or would it be a "recurring type" charge ?

    3. If a recurring charge, would it be applied once every year (either at the time
    of vehicle re-registration or at some other anniversary ) ? How many years would
    it continue to be levied for ?

    4. What if I was a licensed driver (and responsible for an accident), but I was
    not the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the accident ? How would
    the charge then be applied ?


    C. Qualifying for an Increased ACC Levy ?

    1. When you say an "at-fault history", what do you mean ?

    Does that mean that I would have to have been successfully prosecuted (by the
    Police) as the party responsible for having caused an accident ?

    2. What if fault could not be clearly assigned to either driver involved in an
    accident ? Or if both drivers were each deemed partly responsible ?

    3. How significant would an injury (or vehicle damage) need to be before the
    additional ACC levy should then come into effect ?

    4. What if I simply ran off the road (e.g. due to not paying attention or to
    slippery road conditions), did not cause any significant personal injury or
    vehicle damage, but was still reported and was prosecuted by Police (say a
    careless driving charge) ? Would I still be liable ?

    5. What if I caused some vehicle damage, but no personal injury ? Would I still
    be liable ?


    D. Applying the Increased ACC Levy ?

    1. Would the end-to-end business process need:

    - Some increased interaction and exchange of data between Police and MOJ Courts,
    Licensing and ACC organisations ?
    - Some upgrade of their business processes, IT systems and interfaces ?

    2. Would the charging of this additional ACC levy amount apply from the time
    of the accident onwards ? Or from the time of successful prosecution ?

    3. Would the additional ACC levy be associated with the vehicle involved, or
    with the person (assume the registered owner of that vehicle) ?

    4. If the additional ACC levy was to be applied against the vehicle, what if:
    - the vehicle was not currently registered ?
    - it had been sold ( de-registered ) ?

    5. What if I had multiple vehicles ? Would the increased ACC levy amount now
    be charged against each and every vehicle associated with me ?

    6. What if I had multiple "at fault" accidents over a number of years? Would
    the same ACC levy rate still continue to be applied, or would it continue to
    increase (be stepped up in response to each accident) ?


    E. Increased ACC Levy Rate or Amount ?

    1. How were you planning to increase the ACC levy amount ?
    - By a fixed $ amount ?
    - By a rate percentage ?

    2. How much extra were you looking at charging ? x $ or x % ?

    3. What if my motorcycle is registered for (i) 3 or 6 months (ii) 12 months ?
    Are variable rates or amounts required ?

    3. How much annual "income" do you see the Government generating as a result of
    first prosecuting these "at fault" riders or drivers, and then penalising them further
    via the ACC system ?

    4. If some "at fault" riders (or drivers) refuse to pay fines at present - and now refuse
    to pay this additional ACC levy, which Government agency did you see being responsible
    for notifying, chasing and collecting unpaid debt ?

    ================================================== ============================

    Personally, I cannot see any good reason why Government would ever consider such
    a proposition. Let alone consider the use of ACC as a means to penalise "offenders".

    Why not ?

    Well, just to state a few reasons off the top of my head :

    1. I can't see any compelling argument why an increase in ACC levy rates would
    drive a positive change in rider (or driver) behaviour.

    If speed camera fines don't drive such behaviour now, why do you think changes
    to ACC levies would be any more effective ?

    2. It risks confusing current separation between driver infringement and penalty
    (Police and MOJ Courts), licensing (Vehicle Licensing) and driver / passenger
    injury treatment and rehabilitation (ACC) systems.

    3. The fundamental fact that ACC is a risk oriented system (levies are calculated
    based on an assessment of risk of accident and injury).

    ACC is NOT a "fault oriented" system.

    It would be the wrong system (tool) for the job of penalising offenders.

    4. Cost of changes to various Government Dept business processes and IT systems
    and interfaces.

    5. Degree of interaction and data transfer required between various Government
    Dept IT systems to make it work.

    6. Government would be unlikely to recover the implementation and operational costs
    associated with any such changes.


    But maybe your answers will persuade me otherwise. I look forward to your comprehensive
    reply .

  10. #550
    Join Date
    9th May 2008 - 21:23
    Bike
    A
    Location
    B
    Posts
    2,547
    Raising ACC levies for those who've been proven to be at fault? Yeah nah, too much like ambulance at the bottom of the cliff for my liking.

    I'd much sooner support having to renew drivers licence every 5 years.

    But then along with that, meaningful enforcement on those who drive without a licence.

  11. #551
    Join Date
    6th May 2012 - 10:41
    Bike
    invisibike
    Location
    pulling a sick mono
    Posts
    6,057
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by caspernz View Post
    .

    I'd much sooner support having to renew drivers licence every 5 years.
    .
    which achieves what? and who pays for that?

  12. #552
    Join Date
    20th January 2008 - 17:29
    Bike
    1972 Norton Commando
    Location
    Auckland NZ's Epicentre
    Posts
    3,554
    Quote Originally Posted by cassina View Post
    So what you are saying then is that everyone should be considered as potentially at fault? Some road users are actually brighter than others did you know? Only punish the dumb "at fault" ones is my thinking.
    I'm for pricing idiots off the road, when I lived in Ireland about 16 years ago you did not see large capacity cars as Rego was based on engine capacity and compulsory insurance meant less experienced drivers premiums were higher.
    I can't say I liked paying more but you didn't have the " She will be right" attitude you have here.
    But then I'd like to see hospitals charging people who turn up suffering from to much of a good time as well.
    DeMyer's Laws - an argument that consists primarily of rambling quotes isn't worth bothering with.

  13. #553
    Join Date
    19th January 2013 - 16:56
    Bike
    a 400 and a 650 :-)
    Location
    The Isthmus
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by cassina View Post
    So what you are saying then is that everyone should be considered as potentially at fault? Some road users are actually brighter than others did you know? Only punish the dumb "at fault" ones is my thinking.
    I stand to be corrected on this, at one time insurance companies did consider all parties involved in a crash "as potentially at fault" and proportioned blame accordingly. If you were, for agrument's sake, rear-ended then they considered you to be "at fault" for being there.

    As for "punish the dumb 'at fault' ones", as has been said, "ambulance at bottom of hill" thinking. I hope and pray you have absolutely nothing to do with education...

  14. #554
    Join Date
    19th January 2013 - 16:56
    Bike
    a 400 and a 650 :-)
    Location
    The Isthmus
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by cassina View Post
    Wow what a ramble!! Sure what I propose lacks technical detail but a simple vehicle insurance model could be applied to ACC by imposing a higher charge for those with an at fault history. For example when you apply for vehicle insurance you are asked to declare any past "at fault crashes" going back a number of years and your premium is set at a higher rate because of it.
    Tell you what...

    if you think your idea is worthy of consideration, start a petition and when you have enough signatures present it to the Minister for ACC, Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, and present your case for changing the present system.


    By the way, don't be surprised if when you start discussing your ideas that others suggest that you "may not be of sound mind"...

  15. #555
    Join Date
    9th May 2008 - 21:23
    Bike
    A
    Location
    B
    Posts
    2,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Akzle View Post
    which achieves what? and who pays for that?
    Ok, read it as having to resit driving test every 2 to 5 years. If you take an approved defensive driving course maybe you can have a longer licence term? It raises the standard over time. Has to be self funding by savings in road trauma overall, be cheaper for taxpayer me thinks. Plenty of jobs in there as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by cassina View Post
    So what you are saying then is that everyone should be considered as potentially at fault? Some road users are actually brighter than others did you know? Only punish the dumb "at fault" ones is my thinking.
    The approach of ACC is in the name, it's compensation not insurance.

    If you only punish those who've already stuffed up, doesn't that equate to ambulance at bottom of cliff mentality? It doesn't improve driver standards or road safety.

    There has to be a multi pronged approach to improving road safety. It includes better trained users of roads, which I've done voluntarily. Then better enforcement of existing rules, which I have no problem with. Then on top of that I'll happily go along with having to requalify for my drivers licence on a periodic basis. Heck, plenty of us get assessed in our workplace on periodic basis for competency, why not extend that to road users?

    Your way of thinking, hike ACC levy for offenders, can we change that to shortening the life span of offending drivers' licence, ie having to resit every year maybe? Or some form of traffic school instead of fines for offenders.

    But perhaps the main problem is that holding a drivers licence is seen as a right, whereas it should be seen as a privilege.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •